Category: Evidence & Anomalies

In this story, we learn that at least some of the alleged hijackers – the same ones brought into the country by the CIA and funded by Bush’s friends in the highest levels of Saudi government – lived with FBI informants. To me, this fits more closely with the theory that the alleged hijackers were patsies.

Right after 9/11, while nobody else could fly because flights were grounded, bin Laden family members were allowed to fly out of the country. It seems to me that normal police work would involve questioning the relatives of the person who allegedly carried out the worst terror attack on U.S. soil in history.

The alleged hijackers, most likely patsies, were funded by high ranking Saudis who have been very close with the Bush family. Prince Bandar even met with George W. Bush right after 9/11.

Where I would be very careful about going too far down this road is that the alleged hijackers, all part of a very sophisticated intelligence operation that was probably planned for several years, if not decades, are a diversion. The trail left by the alleged hijackers seems to be deliberate. It diverts attention away from how there probably were no hijackers and the most likely mastermind of 9/11 is Dick Cheney.

Do you really believe the U.S. government would cover up 9/11 for Saudi Arabia? The funding for the patsies would have been through foreign proxies as a way to maintain plausible deniability.

If you believe suspecting the use of drone aircraft is the byproduct of loose thinking, think again. It’s not only important that the evidence corroborates the theory, but that the theory corroborates the evidence. I stick with eyewitness testimony that corroborates the rest of the evidence. Eyewitnesses saw something other than a commercial airliner. Watch the clip below in its entirety.

I understand a Specialist is most likely not somebody who has spent a career in the military, but I use the title straight from the article and that’s besides the point. The issue is that the Pentagon wasn’t evacuated despite the FAA notifying NEADS of incoming aircraft around 15 minutes before impact. While the Pentagon wasn’t evacuated, the National Reconnaissance Office, the agency which operates surveillance satellites and could have maybe actually seen what hit the Pentagon, was evacuated. In what way did the evacuation of NRO impact our surveillance capabilities that morning?

The Pentagon was struck in the exact and only part (i.e. Wedge One) that had been undergoing renovations which were completed, or neared completion, on the very morning of 9/11.

Curiously, it was the exact opposite side as the side that housed senior leaders. The renovations made that part of the Pentagon the only part with blast resistant windows and a sprinkler system. It was ostensibly the safest part of the Pentagon. If that was the safest part of the Pentagon, why did none of the senior leaders seek shelter in that part of the Pentagon?

Six months before 9/11, an episode of the Lone Gunmen, which aired on FOX, depicted a rogue faction within the government remotely hijacking a commercial airliner to fly it into the World Trade Center under the cover of war games and as a pretext to boost the military industrial complex. The star of the show, Dean Haglund, has even gone public suggesting that the CIA dropped the script on the producer of the show. What this does is serve as a discrediting mechanism, because when somebody suggests that scenario really took place on 9/11 itself, as evidence suggests, people can say that person got it from a movie. So depicting 9/11 on a television show before 9/11 fictionalizes the truth.

The real story from this isn’t just that different parts of the government were doing drills very similar to what actually happened on 9/11, but that the National Reconnaissance Office sent its employees home when the real world events of 9/11 began to occur.

Think about this more carefully. The National Reconnaissance Office operates surveillance satellites which could have been used to monitor the Pentagon. In what way did the drills of the National Reconnaissance Office curtail surveillance of the Pentagon? Was the National Reconnaissance Office evacuated anterior to the Pentagon being hit?

If so, doesn’t it seem awkward that the Pentagon wasn’t evacuated despite the FAA notifying NEADS of incoming aircraft 15 minutes before impact, but the National Reconnaissance Office, which is the one agency that could have seen what actually hit the Pentagon, was evacuated before the Pentagon was hit?

Pursuant to the FBI agent in charge of the Amerithrax investigation, Richard Lambert, FBI leadership impeded the investigation and stove piped the flow of information. Why would the FBI have sabotaged the Amerithrax investigation?

In this article, we are told about the government having the Ames strain of anthrax destroyed which would make it harder to trace the anthrax used in the attack back to its origin. We also learn in this article that, somehow, the way to “prevent” terrorism would be for the FBI to tap lawyer-client conversations. That would more likely allow the FBI to manage patsies. The only way it would help solve the anthrax attack is if the FBI tapped Dick Cheney’s conversations with all of his aides and lawyers.

Of all the people in the world, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani got the contract to decontaminate the building that was hit with anthrax. One of the first things the government did after the anthrax attack was order all of the Ames strain of anthrax destroyed, which would have made it much harder to do genetic testing in order to determine the origin of the anthrax that was used in the attack. Was Giuliani there to decontaminate the building or help destroy evidence?

Larry Klayman, himself a former Department of Justice official, believes the White House had foreknowledge of the anthrax attack. Keep in mind the attack was allegedly carried out by a scientist in the employ of the government pursuant to the government itself. And let me make clear that the White House didn’t take the anthrax shots, but was on the antibiotic Cipro before the anthrax attack.

On this one you need to scroll down and read the remarks about how the alleged hijackers had no way of knowing about the nexus between the lady who rented them apartments and the tabloid paper that was hit by anthrax. This prompts the question: Who selected the targets? I don’t believe it was Bruce Ivins who selected those targets.

The information contained in this article is key, because it contains the nexus between the anthrax attack and the 9/11 attack. Keep in mind that the anthrax attack took place after 9/11, which means, following the government’s own conspiracy theory, the alleged hijackers were all dead. But I would say the mistake is to assume that what we’ve been told about 9/11 was true and that there were indeed hijackers.

Like I’ve said over and over, if the anthrax attack was an inside job – which it was pursuant to the government itself – and if it was nexused with 9/11, then how was 9/11 not an inside job?

I believe that when all the information is collected and amalgamated, the only scenario that makes sense is the alleged hijackers were patsies and that the planes were remotely piloted drones.

This article tells us that one of the targets that was hit by anthrax in Florida was a building occupied by a media publication edited by a man whose wife rented apartments to the alleged hijackers. The government calls it a big “coincidence”. If it wasn’t a “coincidence”, then there’s a problem – a major problem.

Pursuant to an aide to the former head of the FBI, Robert Mueller, the White House (particularly Cheney and his henchmen) tried to pressure the FBI into blaming the anthrax attack on al Qa’eda anterior to any investigation whatsoever. That alone is totally criminal, and it debunks the belief that the Bush administration was above blaming a terrorist attack that was, pursuant to the government itself, an inside job on some other enemy as a pretext to go to war. Was the Bush administration blaming an attack like 9/11 on a foreign enemy as a pretext to go to war? Well, they wanted to do it for the anthrax attack.

Bruce Ivins received the highest civilian award the Army has to offer almost two years after he allegedly carried out the anthrax attack. He was given the award by the Dick Cheney acolyte, former Army Brigadier General, Enron executive, Secretary of the Army, Thomas White.

False flag (or black flag) describes covert operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by entities, groups, or nations other than those who actually planned and executed them. Operations carried out during peace-time by civilian organizations, as well as covert government agencies, may by extension be called false flag operations if they seek to hide the real organization behind an operation. Geraint Hughes uses the term to refer to those acts carried out by "military or security force personnel, which are then blamed on terrorists." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

Search for:

I have had questions about 9/11 for quite some time. I have been active in politics for almost 25 years. I have counted myself as a conservative Republican going back to when I was in high school, even having volunteered for Republican campaigns, and that was in 1994. So I have no natural animosity for Republicans or the Bush administration. (My political epiphany that led me away from the Republican Party and to libertarianism came in 1999.)

As one who has held the Series 3 license, having a background in finance, I have been active in raising important economic issues because I care about my fellow countrymen. In all of the work I have done on behalf of everybody's freedom and prosperity, only briefly did I ask for contributions, but have received none. Not only have I never received contributions, I have donated to veteran causes even at times I was making below the poverty line.

Prosperity preachers ask for contributions to sell people a false Gospel. Political candidates and politicians solicit contributions when all those candidates and politicians plan to do is undermine our freedom and the economy. Therefore, I don't believe I am asking too much to ask for your support. But I don't ask for contributions. I just ask that you support this site by making purchases through the Store.

Your support will enable me to keep this website up and running. The more support I receive, the more I can promote 9/11 truth. If this site generates any significant amount of funds, I will use it to purchase billboards and other advertising. Exposing 9/11 truth is the key to restoring our country to its founding principles, as well as extricating the United States from military confrontation around the world, which would benefit not just me, but you and many others around the world.

I am fighting for you. If you want me to keep up the fight, then I ask you to support this site by purchasing items from the Store.